'If Governor Feels Bills Are Repugnant, Should He Not Tell Govt Immediately?' : Supreme Court Asks In Tamil Nadu Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 7) asked if the Tamil Nadu Governor could simply sit over the bills passed by the Assembly based on his own perception that they were repugnant to the Central laws, without communicating his opinion to the Government.The Court asked if it was not incumbent on the Governor to return the bills to the Assembly as soon as possible, in terms of the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, if he felt that they were repugnant.The Court also observed during the hearing that an "impasse" has been created as the President has also returned the bills saying that they are repugnant. It said that the Court will go into the factual question if the bills were repugnant and decide it, if need arose.A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the writ petitions filed by the State Government in 2023 aggrieved by the Governor's refusal to grant assent for twelve bills, the oldest among them pending since January 2020.After the bills remained pending for several years, on November 13, 2023, the Governor declared that he was withholding assent on ten bills. Following that, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly convened a special session and re-enacted the very same bills on November 18, 2023. On November 28, some Bills were referred to the President.So far, four lawyers have made their arguments on behalf of the State. To summarise, the Court yesterday formulated 8 questions and sought the assistance of both parties on it. As per the petitioners' arguments, the Governor has three options under Article 200 when the Bill is sent to him: assent, reserve for reconsideration of the President and withhold the assent. The State argued that if the Governor reserves it for the President's reconsideration, he has to do so at the first instance. However, if he does not exercise that, the next recourse is to send the Bill to the State legislature. Here, it was argued that as per the Punjab Governor's decision(which was pronounced at a time when the Tamil Nadu Governor decided to send the re-enacted Bills to the President), if the Governor was withholding the assent, then he should return the bills to the assembly.If the Governor feels the bill is repugnant, should he not tell the Govt?As against this, the Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani has argued that when the Governor 'communicated' that he had withheld the assent, he did not do so for the State legislature to re-enact the Bills and then came to the Governor claiming that he is bound to give assent. He submitted a file relating to the exchange that has taken place between the Governor and the Government. This was after the Court orally remarked that the Governor seemed to have "adopted his own procedure" in withholding the assent and then when the Bills were re-enacted, he sent it to the President. The Court had asked the Attorney General that it wanted to see what weighed with the Governor when he decided to send it to the President.Explaining the arguments further, the Attorney General submitted that the Governor has four options under Article 200. He said: "When the State Government introduces a Bill before the legislative assembly and presents it to the Governor for his assent, and the Governor withholds the assent...the Bill in question falls. This means the Bill ceases to exist. In such a case, it is not required on the part of the Governor to go through the process of the first proviso(return the bill to the House). The Government on its own cannot also go through the first proviso(to re-enact the bills) and as a matter of fact because the Governor has not sent the Bill for reconsideration. What happened in this case? The Government on their own went through the first proviso and called upon the Governor to give his assent. The first proviso to Article 200 is a further course of action besides the other three, namely giving assent, withholding assent and reserving the Bill straightway for consideration. It's more appropriate to say the first proviso can be invoked by the Governor when the reason, other than repugnance, the Governor may present to the Government several propositions in relation to the Bill."He added that when there is a "perceived repugnance", which both parties are aware of, the Governor is not bound to "write an essay" on repugnance and communicate it back to the State Legislature. He can simply send it to the President.Attorney General said: "On the contrary, when the Bill suffers from repugnancy, the Governor need not necessarily and may not be even obligated to first proviso. The occasion for invoking first proviso will depend on the feature of the Bill in question. No straightway jacket formula can be set to tie the hands of the Governor towards proceedings under first proviso."However, Justice Pardiwala asked if the Governor is not obliged to inform the Government about repugnance. He said: "We want you to elaborate on this, when the Governor felt it suffers from...

'If Governor Feels Bills Are Repugnant, Should He Not Tell Govt Immediately?' : Supreme Court Asks In Tamil Nadu Case

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

If repugnancy is something that troubled the Governor, he should have immediately brought it to the notice of the Government and the Government could have reconsidered the Bills, the Court said.

Tags